what do Bush-conservatives stand for?

[Braydon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4CfJ8Re8gk&feature=related

 

"the four killed about 100"...these guys are well trained. how can you diss this military?

Edited September 13, 2008 by Braydon

[pc313]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4CfJ8Re8gk&feature=related

 

"the four killed about 100"...these guys are well trained. how can you diss this military?

It's not too late to join the Military and be a man!!

[TREETOAD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4CfJ8Re8gk&feature=related

 

"the four killed about 100"...these guys are well trained. how can you diss this military?

 

They lost a multi million dollar hellicopter!! They lost

[Braydon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4CfJ8Re8gk&feature=related

 

"the four killed about 100"...these guys are well trained. how can you diss this military?

It's not too late to join the Military and be a man!!

 

never too late just too early but if Obama becomes president you won't be doing anything anyway. the navy seals are too hardcore for me though.

[Braydon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4CfJ8Re8gk&feature=related

 

"the four killed about 100"...these guys are well trained. how can you diss this military?

 

They lost a multi million dollar hellicopter!! They lost

 

Are you saying thats more important than the lives lost?

[Gary_Yngve]

Each Seal is probably worth a million in terms of recruiting/training alone.

[Braydon]

which explains why these guys are so good...they didn't officially lose the battle until they ran out of ammo (which who knows if more would have made a difference). i think i'm going to read that book for my autobiography to piss off my extremely liberal English teacher.

[murraysovereign]

Ok so even if we call that "majority"

Yeah, too bad it's losing two wars to poorly equipped third world foes simultaneously.

 

Here's another one: the US buys 40% of the worlds' military hardware; more than the next 10 countries combined.

 

Fuck yeah!

 

http://mattsteinglass.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/vietnam-war-killed-38-million-vietnamese-not-21-million/

 

if you mean vietnam the u.s. lost approximately 58,000. check out how many vietnam lost. i'd say the u.s. kicked their ass.

 

Yeah, as English is apparently not your first language, we have these things called tenses. Present tense means it's happening right now.

 

Over 1 million Vietnamese died during Vietnam; the vast majority of them were unarmed civilians. It's pretty easy to kick the ass of a rice farmer when he's got a spade and you've got a B 52 full of 500 pound bombs. Hardly something to celebrate; it was a human tragedy on both sides.

 

And we lost. Completely. Totally. Unambiguously. The North Vietnamese were Saigon as our last choppers were leaving, as you may recall (or not). The country is still under the very same government they established shortly after we were gone.

 

Okay so even if we call that "majority" a bizarre number like 3 million (total guess), that still leaves 800 thousand soldiers versus 58,000. I'm giving that majority the benefit of the doubt.

 

You're confusing "killing more people" with "winning the war". They're not the same. Vietnam is a shining example of this: the US killed far, far more Vietnamese than were lost in US casualties. But did the US "win" the Vietnam War in any meaningful sense of the word? I would say not. The US bailed out of Vietnam when it became clear that the war was, in fact, lost. The Viet Cong had over-run Saigon, and the last remnants of the American presence were flow out of the embassy compound by helicopter as the VC were taking control of the city.

 

But the US "won" the war because they killed more people? Really?

[Braydon]

If we would have stayed in Vietnam long enough we could have killed enough people to win the war. Same as Iraq however in order for us to to win that war Pakistan is going to have to crack down on the Taliban and Al Qaeda which I don't see happening anytime soon.

 

Although the Vietnam War did not achieve it's overall goal it did have some accomplishments. The military of North Vietnam had been improved, enabling it to defend itself against neighboring countries such as Cambodia and Red China. The war also introduced Eastern Culture to Western ways, laws, and trade practices that helped it to enter the world of trade and commercialism in the 21st Century.

[Mal_Con]

You must be very young. Some of us were in Viet Nam, it was never clear what winning was or why we were there other than to "fight communism". We killed millions of Vietnamese some VC some not, couldn't really tell the difference. We left when it was clear it could go on forever with no changes never "winning" never losing. When we left it was under the farce of vietnamization where the SVA would fight the commies for us, they lasted a year or so after most of the US troups left. Then the NVA took over though most of us thought that was the plan all along. The world did not end the reds did not take over the world and now they sell us cheap clothes, so it goes.

[tvashtarkatena]

If we would have stayed in Vietnam long enough we could have killed enough people to win the war. Same as Iraq however in order for us to to win that war Pakistan is going to have to crack down on the Taliban and Al Qaeda which I don't see happening anytime soon.

 

Although the Vietnam War did not achieve it's overall goal it did have some accomplishments. The military of North Vietnam had been improved, enabling it to defend itself against neighboring countries such as Cambodia and Red China. The war also introduced Eastern Culture to Western ways, laws, and trade practices that helped it to enter the world of trade and commercialism in the 21st Century.

 

You apparently know little about war, either historically or in its present incarnation. From your postings, you know particularly little about the Vietnam War; which means you know even less about our present wars, as the philosophies that caused them were spawned by our defeat in Vietnam.

 

War is a tool of foreign policy; to 'win' one you must achieve a desired political goal. "Killing enough people", even if that were remotely possible during the Vietnam War, which it was not for a variety of reasons (although we certainly killed plenty), is not a political end and therefore does not constitute winning unless it is a war of extermination. Now, you may be in favor of the U.S. committing genocide; most of the rest of us are not.

 

Nearly all serious historians agree that we could not have 'won' the war in Vietnam under any military circumstances. The war was politically unpopular from early on and became more so as it dragged on. It probably could have been conducted differently had we not been a democracy, but then again giant spaceships could have landed and taken us all to the Forbidden Planet, too.

 

Furthermore, the U.S. fundamentally misunderstood the situation from the beginning, mistaking a civil and anti-colonial war for a communist incursion, so it's mission was unclear at best and non-existent during the worst phases. The U.S. also purposefully redefined this war as a front in the war against communism (sound familiar?) for domestic political purposes; Kennedy needed to appear to the electorate to be tough on Communism.

 

The only way the U.S. could have 'won' in Vietnam would have been to heed Ho Chi Min's plea for independence in 1946 (communicated through several letters to Truman) and help them negotiate it with the French at that time. Instead we actually forced the French to hand their failed colonial war over to us (by threatening to cut off all foreign aid to France, which was quite a lot so soon after WWII) so that we could re-shape it into a struggle against communism. At the time, less than 20% of Ho Chi Min's movement was communist, but that % grew, of course, as America's Cold War rivals began to support the Viet Min. It just got worse from there.

 

By the time the 60s rolled around, Vietnam was already an unsolveable clusterfuck for the U.S. That we did not recognize and act to end our folly until the mid 70's was a human tragedy of immense scale. Not only did millions of Vietnamese die during that period, but millions of Cambodians died under Pol Pot's regime afterward as a direct result of the war's aftermath. Millions of people isn't enough death for you?

Edited September 13, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[ivan]

which explains why these guys are so good...they didn't officially lose the battle until they ran out of ammo (which who knows if more would have made a difference). i think i'm going to read that book for my autobiography to piss off my extremely liberal English teacher.

as a teacher, i can honestly say, good for you!

 

but, to kinda burst yer bubble, most liberal teachers don't give a shit what you think, and are stoked just to see you ACTUALLY THINKING

[ivan]

observe the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff last week testifying to congress and saying, regarding afghanistan, "we can't kill our way out of this"

Edited September 13, 2008 by ivan

[Tokogirl]

which explains why these guys are so good...they didn't officially lose the battle until they ran out of ammo (which who knows if more would have made a difference). i think i'm going to read that book for my autobiography to piss off my extremely liberal English teacher.

as a teacher, i can honestly say, good for you!

 

but, to kinda burst yer bubble, most liberal teachers don't give a shit what you think, and are stoked just to see you ACTUALLY THINKING

 

Good to know that your learning to think in school!

[pc313]

If we would have stayed in Vietnam long enough we could have killed enough people to win the war. Same as Iraq however in order for us to to win that war Pakistan is going to have to crack down on the Taliban and Al Qaeda which I don't see happening anytime soon.

 

Although the Vietnam War did not achieve it's overall goal it did have some accomplishments. The military of North Vietnam had been improved, enabling it to defend itself against neighboring countries such as Cambodia and Red China. The war also introduced Eastern Culture to Western ways, laws, and trade practices that helped it to enter the world of trade and commercialism in the 21st Century.

 

You apparently know little about war, either historically or in its present incarnation. From your postings, you know particularly little about the Vietnam War; which means you know even less about our present wars, as the philosophies that caused them were spawned by our defeat in Vietnam.

 

War is a tool of foreign policy; to 'win' one you must achieve a desired political goal. "Killing enough people", even if that were remotely possible during the Vietnam War, which it was not for a variety of reasons (although we certainly killed plenty), is not a political end and therefore does not constitute winning unless it is a war of extermination. Now, you may be in favor of the U.S. committing genocide; most of the rest of us are not.

 

Nearly all serious historians agree that we could not have 'won' the war in Vietnam under any military circumstances. The war was politically unpopular from early on and became more so as it dragged on. It probably could have been conducted differently had we not been a democracy, but then again giant spaceships could have landed and taken us all to the Forbidden Planet, too. The U.S. fundamentally misunderstood the situation from the beginning, mistaking a civil and anti-colonial war for a communist insurgence, so it's mission was unclear at best and non-existent during the worst phases. The only way the U.S. could have 'won' in Vietnam would have been to heed Ho Chi Min's plea for independence in 1946 (communicated through several letters to Truman) and help them negotiate it with the French at that time. Instead we actually forced the French to hand their failed colonial war over to us so that we could re-shape it into a struggle against communism. At the time, less than 20% of Ho Chi Min's movement was communist, but that % grew, of course, as America's Cold War rivals began to support the Viet Min. It just got worse from there.

 

By the time the 60s rolled around, Vietnam was already an unsolveable clusterfuck for the U.S. It was a human tragedy of immense proportion that we did not recognize and act on that realization until the mid 70s.

[tvashtarkatena]

observe the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff last week testifying to congress and saying, regarding iraq, "we can't kill our way out of this"

 

There's nothing about Iraq that isn't painfully familiar from the 60s and 70s.

 

Since WWII, the executive branch has learned that the less the citizenry have to sacrifice for war, the less they'll give a shit about it. Rapid mobilization requires lots of civilian sacrifice, so the politicos figured out that if we just up the military budget permanently so that we're always mobilized for war, the citizenry hardly notices. Hell, they even support the war because it breaks up the monotony of dull suburban life. This gives the President a free hand to do whatever the fuck he wants militarily, and, lo and behold, he does.

 

The formula kind of failed in Vietnam, but the White House figured out that an all volunteer military would solve that problem, and it did. Now, we really don't give a shit whether or not we're at war. No real difference at home, hell, who even notices? The result is that we're at war pretty much all the time somewhere, and have been since the 50s. 59% of our federal discresionary tax dollars go to this military corporate welfare system now. No politico even hints about cutting back on this cocaine party anymore. REDUCE THE MILITARY?!!! ARE YOU CRAZY???!!!! Billions of jihadist are mobilized along the Canadian and Mexican borders and you want to REDUCE THE MILITARY????

 

Per our own National Security Estimate, our military, the largest in our history, and, by many times, the largest in the world, is an offensive one designed to secure global domination for the U.S. It has little to do with actual national defense, which, after all, can mostly be taken care of by proper border security. After all, our geographic position provides most of our security for free.

 

So, considering what we actually need for national defense, our military is bloated beyond belief; it's many times larger than it needs to be to perform that function. If there is a conflict somewhere that matters requiring our attention, another Hitler threatening all of Europe, say, what's wrong with mobilizing for that particular conflict rather than always bearing this enormous burden so that we can fuck ourselves with it in places like Iraq and Afhanistan? What, we can't mobilize as quickly as we did during WWII during the INFORMATION AGE????

Edited September 13, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[ivan]

observe the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff last week testifying to congress and saying, regarding iraq, "we can't kill our way out of this"

 

There's nothing about Iraq that isn't painfully familiar from the 60s and 70s.

 

Since WWII, the executive branch has learned that the less the citizenry have to sacrifice for war, the less they'll give a shit about it. Rapid mobilization requires lots of civilian sacrifice, so the politicos figured out that if we just up the military budget permanently so that we're always mobilized for war, the citizenry hardly notices. Hell, they even support the war because it breaks up the monotony of dull suburban life. This gives the President a free hand to do whatever the fuck he wants militarily, and, lo and behold, he does.

 

The formula kind of failed in Vietnam, but the White House figured out that an all volunteer military would solve that problem, and it did. Now, we really don't give a shit whether or not we're at war. No real difference at home, hell, who even notices? The result is that we're at war pretty much all the time somewhere, and have been since the 50s. 59% of our federal discresionary tax dollars go to this military corporate welfare system now. No politico even hints about cutting back on this cocaine party anymore. REDUCE THE MILITARY?!!! ARE YOU CRAZY???!!!! Billions of jihadist are mobilized along the Canadian and Mexican borders and you want to REDUCE THE MILITARY????

this was orwell's exact prediction, of course - war for no purpose but to control one's own population, and therefore, eternal war w/ no interest in winning

[tvashtarkatena]

I read 'cromwell' for 'orwell'. That fuckstick burned down the abbey in my ancestral village...and my lazy ass Irish relations still haven't rebuilt it!

Edited September 13, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

War, no matter how fucking stupid, does give half the dumb young guys something to feel manly about, and the other half something to be scared of.

[ivan]

tvash - how is it htat you and i are so lame as to both be sitting in front of a goddamn computer on a beautiful saturday afternoon?

 

ah well, at least i'm off for a 3 year old's b-day party!

 

and listening to johnny cash along the way...

[tvashtarkatena]

I was just thinking the same thing. I'm stuck here for undiscloseable reasons.

[Tokogirl]

Got to keep the economy rolling by producing WMD.

In Eisenhower's final address to the nation didn't he warn of the growing "American Military Industial Complex" - this from a principled republican.

[tvashtarkatena]

Did you know that if America laid all of it's bombs end to end, they would ring the world 50 times over...

 

...and most of them would promptly wind up either pilfered or at the bottom of the ocean.

[prole]

End War?! Man, how the fuck are we gonna eat then?

[Braydon]

tvash - how is it htat you and i are so lame as to both be sitting in front of a goddamn computer on a beautiful saturday afternoon?

 

ah well, at least i'm off for a 3 year old's b-day party!

 

and listening to johnny cash along the way...

 

yeah i'm stuck hear because my parents are out of town and they don't want me climbing...oh well . they're still mad at me for coming home from index at 2:00am friday night.

Edited September 14, 2008 by Braydon